In a submission to a Senate inquiry, a former Save the Children child protection worker has detailed 30 case studies of serious abuse of children as young as two in the Nauru detention centre.
Photograph: Supplied

Scott Morrison was made aware in December 2013 of serious allegations of sexual abuse at Australia’s detention centre on Nauru, almost a year before a full review into allegations was commissioned, a Senate inquiry has heard.

A committee in Canberra is currently investigating serious allegations of sexual assault at the Nauru detention centre. The inquiry has heard evidence that the immigration department regularly interfered with medical assessments on Nauru and asked medical staff to change reports.

The committee heard from two former Save the Children child protection workers on Tuesday, Viktoria Vibhakar and Kirsty Diallo, who both raised significant concerns about the process for reporting and mitigating risks surrounding sexual assaults at the Nauru centre.

“In December 2013 I asked the Save the Children manager if that incident report had been forwarded on to the minister for immigration,” Diallo said. “I was advised the minister had seen the report.”

Her testimony highlights the high level at which serious assaults appear to be have been reported within the immigration department.

A full review into allegations of sexual assault was not commissioned until October 2014, when former integrity commissioner Philip Moss was asked to investigate the allegations.

Diallo said she was forced to conduct an assessment following the assault “under a tree”.

“I had to carry out that assessment in an open space under a tree because there was no private setting to have that conversation with that child. That would be completely inappropriate in Australia,” she said.

Diallo expanded on her comments in her written submission to the inquiry, which details the aftermath of the assault.

“During the conversation with the boy he was visibly upset and stated repeatedly ‘this is a matter of my honour’. I also spoke with his mother who sobbed throughout the conversation stating ‘I brought my children to Australia to keep them safe, now this happens.’”

Diallo wrote that despite the alleged direct knowledge of Morrison, “no further steps were taken to protect this child or his family from being targeted by other local staff who remained in the centre”.

In her submission she also raised broader concerns about conditions, including the lack of appropriate footwear for children. Many child asylum seekers were forced to wear “rubber thongs” that were poorly made, despite the harsh conditions of the Nauru detention centre. Other basic items were often not made available to asylum seekers.

“As a result children were subjected to extended periods of neglect. In Australia, this type of neglect would often warrant a child protection investigation and could result in children being removed from their biological parents. However in Nauru this type of systematic neglect was accepted as normal due to the persistent logistical and policy deficits in place.”

Diallo added: “Neglect is recognised as a significant form of abuse, as it results in emotional and psychological harm to children.”

“Even though on numerous occasions they were aware of assaults that occurred to children, the children remained in situations where they faced harm. All you were allowed to do was provide them as much support as possible within the detention environment in Nauru,” Vibhakar said.

“This would not be a situation that would be considered appropriate or adequate to respond to sexual abuse in Australia.”

The crowding of the centre and lack of privacy meant that it was exceeding difficult to protect asylum seekers, she said.

Vibhakar added that one of the key child protection mechanisms in Australia that is not available to workers on Nauru is the power to remove children from unsafe situations.

The secretary of the immigration department, Michael Pezzullo, fronted the inquiry on Tuesday afternoon and rejected suggestions there was any “explicit or implied strategy of brutalisation” on Nauru. He said this was a “fictional narrative of those who oppose offshore processing.”

When asked by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young why a review wasn’t commissioned earlier than October 2014 into sexual abuse allegations despite reporting of incidents since November 2013, Pezzullo said: “There was a concerted period from September to October [in 2014] whereby written allegations were coming in.”

“The minister, and the acting department secretary thought it prudent … and it was certainly the acting secretary’s call, with my very strong endorsement, to commission someone … to look at these allegations that had come forward.”

When pushed on the question of why the review was commissioned at that point in time, Pezzullo said: “The answer is I don’t know. Perhaps the concentrated nature of the allegations, perhaps the fact they all came at a short period of time, I just don’t know.”

He also responded to Young’s allegations about interventions in medical decisions.

“If the view of the clinical advisor ... was the only intervention that is permissible in these circumstances is to remove this person in effect of regional processing, that immediately comes up against the policy to maintain processing,” he said.

“Generally speaking the clinical advice is followed.”

When asked whether allegations of sexual assault had been appropriately responded to since November 2013 Pezzullo said: “We have incident reports that were germane to that topic … that’s why the number of incidents referred to the Nauru police amounts to 50.”

He added: “On the general question of not meeting our obligations … we have regular meetings with the government of Nauru.”